Kaneisha Bird; O.M. (a minor) v. United States of America, acting by and through the Bureau of Indian Affairs

D. Montana

Kaneisha Bird; O.M. (a minor) v. United States of America, acting by and through the Bureau of Indian Affairs

District Court, D. Montana·Decided February 25, 2026·No. 1:23-cv-00148·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

KANEISHA BIRD; O.M. (a minor), CV 23-148-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, Vs. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RECOMMENDATIONS OF acting by and through the Bureau of UNITED STATES Indian Affairs, MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendant.

Plaintiffs Kaneisha Bird and her son O.M. (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action against the United States asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Docs. 25, 43). Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 45) and the United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 51). United States Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Cavan issued his Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 74) on February 10, 2026, recommending: (1) granting Plaintiffs’ Motion in part and denying it in part, and (2) granting the United States’ Motion. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), parties are required to file any objections within 14 days of the filing of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Here, no objections were filed. When no party objects, the district court reviews the

findings and recommendations for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if “the reviewing court ... is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). Having conducted this review, the Court agrees with Judge Cavan’s analysis and conclusions and finds no clear error. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 74) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 45) is GRANTED as to contributory negligence and DENIED as to negligence per se. (2) The United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 51) is GRANTED. Count 3 of the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 25) is DISMISSED.

DATED this of February, 2026. Lue pf) hE tn SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

KANEISHA BIRD; O.M. (a minor), CV 23-148-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, Vs. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RECOMMENDATIONS OF acting by and through the Bureau of UNITED STATES Indian Affairs, MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendant.

Plaintiffs Kaneisha Bird and her son O.M. (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action against the United States asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Docs. 25, 43). Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 45) and the United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 51). United States Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Cavan issued his Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 74) on February 10, 2026, recommending: (1) granting Plaintiffs’ Motion in part and denying it in part, and (2) granting the United States’ Motion. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), parties are required to file any objections within 14 days of the filing of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Here, no objections were filed. When no party objects, the district court reviews the

findings and recommendations for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if “the reviewing court ... is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). Having conducted this review, the Court agrees with Judge Cavan’s analysis and conclusions and finds no clear error. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 74) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 45) is GRANTED as to contributory negligence and DENIED as to negligence per se. (2) The United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 51) is GRANTED. Count 3 of the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 25) is DISMISSED.

DATED this of February, 2026. Lue pf) hE tn SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge

Kaneisha Bird; O.M. (a minor) v. United States of America, acting by and through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, (D. Mont. 2026).

Pincite

Kaneisha Bird; O.M. (a minor) v. United States of America, acting by and through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (Kaneisha Bird; O.M. (a minor) v. United States of America, acting by and through the Bureau of Indian Affairs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related